Ahead of the Santa Clarita City Council’s first discussion on affordable housing next month, the city entered an agreement with the L.A. County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency to receive its share back from Measure A.
That half-cent sales tax replaces Measure H and is expected to generate approximately $21 million in revenue from the city of Santa Clarita, with $3.5 million coming back to the city for affordable housing support.
When the sales tax came up at the Sept. 9 Santa Clarita City Council meeting, City Councilwoman Marsha McLean expressed concern at why such a small percentage of the revenue was coming back.
“And they are expecting like a billion dollars to come in, and we’re going to get $3 million of that,” McLean said.
The formula behind the LACAHSA funding allocation can be complicated and depend on many community variables outlined in the LACAHSA Expenditure Plan.
There are some local and regional factors that contribute to what McLean referred to as Santa Clarita’s “minuscule” share for affordable housing, according to city and county officials. The first had to do with the measure’s initial intent, said Tommy Newman, chief of staff for the L.A. County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, or LACAHSA.
Most of the money for Measure A, about two-thirds, is intended to fight homelessness, he said in a phone interview Tuesday. Regional demographics and needs assessment also factor into a complicated formula, he said.
“The two primary metrics that are used are the percentage of the jurisdiction’s share of low-income households as part of the county, ‘So how many low-income households are there in the city of Santa Clarita as compared to all of Los Angeles County?’” Newman said. “And then the other primary metric is the city’s share of what’s called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment goal: What share of low-income housing is the city of Santa Clarita expected to build as a share of the whole county?”
Generally speaking, those reasons are challenges mentioned for years by those working with the local population in need of services: By and large, the Santa Clarita Valley’s above-average median income qualifies it for less assistance, based on a regional comparison of community needs; and the regional assessment for SCV’s affordable housing is fractional compared to the county’s need, and only a small fraction of those have been built, according to the city’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Under the city’s approved housing element, “Santa Clarita’s share of the county’s lower-income housing need is 5,131 units,” according to an email from Tracy Sullivan, the city’s community preservation officer, who is leading the affordable-housing discussion from the staff side.
“While the city is not obligated to build these units, it is obligated to ensure that sufficient sites with appropriate zoning are available throughout the planning period to accommodate the city’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation), by income group,” according to the element. “Only a small fraction of the units constructed in Santa Clarita over the last planning period have been provided as affordable to lower-income households.”
While the SCV’s allocation of more than 5,000 affordable homes may seem like a lot to a community that has only seen a few hundred built, Sullivan’s email also indicated the number assigned to L.A. County was 340,295 units.
Most recently, the city’s discussion of affordable housing during a City Council meeting involved the potential for a housing developer to see if it could pay an “in-lieu,” or essentially a payment to the city so it didn’t have to build the affordable-housing component of an approved plan.
The city staff recommended the council not take an in-lieu fee at that time because it has no affordable-housing policy or a plan for what it would do with the money if it was accepted. The offer also was considered only a portion of what would be required to incentivize the building of affordable homes somewhere else, which was seen as a reason behind the in-lieu fee.
The developer, New Urban West, also indicated it was having trouble securing the subsidies necessary to build affordable housing.
The City Council responded by calling for a study session on affordable housing, and the city’s planning manager indicated last week the project by New Urban West would be back in front of the dais later this year.
Santa Clarita Councilman Jason Gibbs, who represents the city on LACAHSA’s board, said the agency is still finalizing the guidelines for its spending plan.
“Once those guidelines have been finalized, I would expect staff to begin preparing a draft plan for the council to consider,” Gibbs wrote in a text message Thursday. “In regards to what the city must do with the money, there are three categories that have the defined funding values that will need to be spent in a certain ways: technical assistance, renter support and the preservation of production of affordable units. I believe the majority of the funds will be required in the production and preservation category.”
Sullivan said staff would await direction from the council regarding any plans, which are expected to be a part of the Oct. 7 City Council study session, ahead of the 6 p.m. Planning Commission meeting.
Newman said the new affordable-housing funds represent an exciting opportunity for cities that now have guaranteed direct help that previously might have gone to a county development authority.
“And it’s good to hear that the city of Santa Clarita is digging into all of the planning,” Newman said in a phone interview Tuesday. “The timeline is roughly 12 months to obligate the funding received, and then another 12 months to spend the money.”
